BEAZLEY v THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2017] NZHC 568
The court varied the 12‑month home detention order to a nine‑month term under s 80F(d) of the Sentencing Act 2002 because the applicant had shown clear positive rehabilitation, had supportive evidence from Corrections and Police, and participation in university study made reduction and variation in the public and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] NZHC 568
- Parties
- Applicant: Caleb Jack Beazley; Respondent: The Department of Corrections
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 27 March 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Sentencing Variation / Post Sentencing Application to Vary Home Detention
- Outcome
- Sentence of home detention varied and reduced under s 80F(d) Sentencing Act 2002
- Legal Topics
- Home Detention, Community Detention, Sentence Variation, Sentencing Act 2002, Rehabilitation
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Caleb Jack Beazley
Applicant
The Department of Corrections
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing Variation / Post Sentencing Application to Vary Home Detention
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should vary home detention to community detention to enable study and worksite attendance
- 2 Whether the term of home detention should be reduced under s 80F(d) of the Sentencing Act 2002
- 3 Whether the defendant's rehabilitation and community interest justify variation and reduction
Ratio Decidendi
The court varied the 12‑month home detention order to a nine‑month term under s 80F(d) of the Sentencing Act 2002 because the applicant had shown clear positive rehabilitation, had supportive evidence from Corrections and Police, and participation in university study made reduction and variation in the public and individual interest.
Court Disposition
Sentence of home detention varied and reduced under s 80F(d) Sentencing Act 2002
Orders
- Home detention term reduced from 12 months to 9 months pursuant to s 80F(d) of the Sentencing Act 2002
- Original 12 months' home detention to conclude on 29 May 2017
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
BEAZLEY v THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2017] NZHC 568 [27 March 2017]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYCRI 2014-085-6779[2017] NZHC 568BETWEEN CALEB JACK BEAZLEYApplicantAND THE DEPARTMENT OFCORRECTIONSRespondentHearing: 27 March 2017Counsel: V C Nisbet for ApplicantP K Feltham for RespondentJudgment: 27 March 2017JUDGMENT OF COLLINS JIntroduction[1] On 29 August 2016 I sentenced Mr Beazley to 12 months' home detention inrelation to charges of supplying or offering to supply methamphetamine, conspiracyto supply methamphetamine and participating in an organised criminal group. Thatsentence was reached after adopting a starting point of six years and six months.Significant discounts were provided to reflect Mr Beazley's rehabilitation, time spenton restrictive bail and the assistance he had offered authorities.[2] Mr Beazley has applied to vary the sentence of home detention to one ofcommunity detention so as to enable him to more easily attend a degree course he isundertaking at Massey University, Albany campus. That degree is in construction.Part of the degree involves site work.[3] After reviewing all evidence, and hearing directly from Mr Beazley, I haveresolved to amend the sentence of home detention to one of nine months.[4] This variation is made pursuant to s 80F(d) of the Sentencing Act 2002.[5] There are two reasons why I have chosen to take this cause of action:(a) First, Mr Beazley has responded very positively to the sentence ofhome detention. He has taken a number of steps towards hisrehabilitation. These efforts are confirmed by the Department ofCorrections and by the New Zealand Police. Amongst the evidencepresented to me is a letter of support from Detective Sergeant Moore,the officer in charge of the Police investigation that led to Mr Beazley'sarrest.(b) Second, the University programme that Mr Beazley has engaged in isfurther evidence of his determination to change his life. The sentenceof 12 months' home detention was the maximum sentence of homedetention that could be imposed. In my assessment, it is in the interestsof society and Mr Beazley that every step be taken to encourage hiscontinued rehabilitation. That can best be achieved by reducing theterm of home detention that Mr Beazley must serve.[6] The sentence of 12 months' home detention that I imposed on 29 August 2016will now come to a conclusion on 29 May 2017.______________________________D B Collins J